In three recent decisions the courts have examined the limits on a liquidator’s ability to obtain court orders compelling third parties to provide documents held by them, as well as deciding on the recoverability of costs incurred by third parties complying with production orders that are made against them.

With continuing market volatility a number of companies remain under financial pressure. Businesses or individuals receiving payments from companies that might be financially distressed should be aware of the ability of a liquidator to apply to a court under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) to recover payments made to creditors in the six months prior to the appointment of a liquidator/administrator on the grounds the payment constituted an “unfair preference”.

Quick Recap on the Relevant Provisions

The case held that a judge was right to strike out a claim brought by a liquidator under sections 238 and 241 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as the transactions alleged to have been made at an undervalue were not transactions entered into by the company.

Comment

Background

The main aim of the revision of the Hungarian Bankruptcy Law, effective September 2009, was to make the bankruptcy proceeding more attractive for creditors as well as debtors, to make clearing debt in the course of a bankrutpcy proceeding more effective and, with the increasing number of bankruptcy agreements, to decrease the number of liquidators.  

In a blow to administrators that will surely impact on the timings of any administration, most particularly those involving a large property portfolio, HHJ Purle, sitting in the High Court, has handed down a decision that will have ramifications potentially as serious as those of Re Trident Fashions for administrators in considering how long to remain in office, or indeed whether to accept an appointment at all.

One of the significant changes to distributions in insolvency made by the Enterprise Act 2002 was the abolition of the preferential status of debts owed to the Crown and the introduction of a provision for the creation of a ‘ring-fenced fund’ (also known as the “prescribed part”, an amount currently capped at £600,000) from the proceeds of floating charges created after 15 September 2003 to be applied in distribution to unsecured creditors.

Re Trident Fashions PLC: Exeter City Council v Bairstow [2007] EWHC 400 (Ch)

In March 2007 the High Court ruled that that non-domestic rates are payable as an expense of the administration as a “necessary disbursement” under Rule 2.67(1)(f) Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR), in priority to payment of the administrator’s remuneration.

On 2 March 2007 the High Court handed down the first decision on whether non-domestic rates are payable by an administrator as an expense, and in priority to his remuneration, under Rule 2.67 Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR"). The judge determined that rates in respect of occupied business premises are a "necessary disbursement" (Rule 2.67(f) IR) of an administration.

Although it was not argued, the judge also expressed the view that this liability to pay rates incurred during the period of the administration would be unaltered if the property were unoccupied during this time.

It is often the case, that insolvency claims are pursued against former directors of the insolvent company or persons connected to them. It is also often the case, that such claims are assigned to a litigation funding company given lack of funds in the insolvent estate to pursue them. This is what happened in Lock v Stanley where various claims against the former directors, their parents and connected company were assigned to Manolete.